Showing posts with label Moon base. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Moon base. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Living and Reproducing on Low Gravity Worlds

1972 photograph of Apollo astronaut, Eugene Cernan, walking towards the LRV on the lunar surface (Credit: NASA)


by Marcel F. Williams

Establishing a permanent human presence beyond our planet of evolutionary origin is one of the long term goals of human space travel. The expansion of human settlements throughout the solar system has the potential to dramatically increase the economic wealth of human civilization while also greatly enhancing the survival of our species.

Some space advocates believe that the long term colonization of the solar system will require the manufacture of titanic artificial worlds that rotate to  produce simulated Earth-like gravities within their interior surfaces.  But there are still others  who believe that low gravity worlds such as  the Moon and Mars could be utilized as near term destinations for human colonization.

But can Homo sapiens really live and reproduce on hypogravity worlds?

In his classic 1972 song 'Rocket Man', Elton John says: "Mars ain't the kind of place to raise the kids..."

Well, maybe!


Planets and Moons within the solar system that are potentially suitable for human colonization:


Moon

surface gravity relative to the Earth: 0.17g 

diameter relative to the Earth: 27.3%

surface area relative to the Earth: 7.4%


Mars

surface gravity relative to the Earth: 0.38g 

diameter relative to the Earth: 53.1%

surface area relative to the Earth: 28.4%


Mercury

surface gravity relative to the Earth: 0.38g 

diameter relative to the Earth:  38.3%

surface area relative to the Earth:  14.7%


Callisto 

surface gravity relative to the Earth: 0.13g 

diameter relative to the Earth:  37.8%

surface area relative to the Earth:  14.3%

Note: Land area comprises ~ 29% of the Earth's surface with ~71% covered by water

Continuous exposure to microgravity conditions over weeks and months is inherently deleterious to human health. And there is growing evidence that long term microgravity exposure can also significantly  lower  fertility in humans and other mammals, possibly leading  to sterility. This suggest that crewed interplanetary missions requiring several months of space travel may require interplanetary vehicles capable of producing artificial gravity during the journey. Obviously, humans can't colonize Mars by sterilizing their passengers before they get there!

But it is currently unknown how much gravity is required to mitigate or eliminate significant infertility in humans. However,  if the lower gravity of the Moon or Mars turns out to seriously effect the long term fertility of humans then daily exposure to-- hypergravity-- through short armed centrifuges may be a possible solution.

Short radius hypergravity centrifuge could help to mitigate the possibility of infertility on lower gravity worlds such as the Moon and Mars.   (Credit NASA)
But the lower gravity on extraterrestrial worlds could have another deleterious effect that may effect human reproduction and even the ability of people to return to the normal gravity of the Earth's surface. Bone mineral loss under microgravity conditions is already known to occur in astronauts living in space for several weeks. And significant bone loss could distort the shape of the female pelvis to a degree that endangers her and a potential infant during attempted childbirth. Unfortunately, while hypergravity centrifuges may mitigate muscle loss in low gravity environments, they appear to have no effect on bone mineral loss.  Rigorous exercise in microgravity, however,  does seem to lower the rate of bone mineral loss-- but does not stop it.


Predicted time limits beyond the Earth  for significant  bone loss in humans that could  risk  skeletal fractures once astronauts return to Earth

Space (microgravity) - 36 weeks (60 weeks with exercise)

Moon (1/6 gravity) - 96 weeks

Mars (2/5 gravity) - 159 weeks


The predicted level of tolerable bone loss for humans in space is about 36 weeks. However, if astronauts exercise rigorously for a few hours every day then their stay in space can be extended to 60 weeks (more than a year). So it seems logical that rigorous exercise should enable humans to mitigate or even eliminate significant bone mineral loss under the hypogravity conditions of the Moon and Mars.

Having some gravity could make it possible for people to use heavily weighted vest or backpacks in order to avoid bone mineral loss while maintaining their Earthling strength-- even without daily strenuous exercise.  While lifting weights can strengthen the arms, weighted vest or backpacks producing an Earth-like weight to be carried by their hindlimbs would strengthen the legs which are normally physiologically weakened under microgravity and low gravity environments.,Within pressurized habitats on the Moon an Mars, heavily weighted vest could be worn throughout the day, providing exercise for the leg muscles when standing, walking, running and jumping.

However, children and infants who are born on the Moon and Mars  may also have to wear weighted vest on a regular basis soon after they are born if their bodies are to grow and develop properly on such low gravity worlds. But  it would appear that humans should be able to live and reproduce on low gravity planets and moons such as the Moon and Mars if they wear the appropriate clothing (weight vest or weight packs) while periodically experiencing hypergravity on a short armed centrifuge.

Of course, Homo sapiens is a species that it use to modifying  its clothing and its habitats in order to survive in more hostile environmental. That's why human ancestors were able to radiate from the tropical regions of Africa into the wintery weather of  Europe, Northern Asia, and eventually North America-- especially during the Earth's glacial periods.



Links and References

Bone Loss and Human Adaptation to Lunar Gravity

 Effects of artificial gravity during bed rest on bone metabolism in humans

 How Much Gravity Is Needed to Establish the Perceptual Upright?

Impacts of Altered Gravity on Male and Female Reproductive Health

 Detrimental Effects of Microgravity on Mouse Preimplantation Development In Vitro

 Morphological and Morphometric Study on the Effect of Simulated Microgravity on Rat Testis

Pioneering and Commercial Advantages of Permanent Outpost on the Moon and Mars

SLS Fuel Tank Derived Artificial Gravity Habitats, Interplanetary Vehicles, & Fuel Depots

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Pioneering and Commercial Advantages of Permanent Outpost on the Moon and Mars

Twin Regolith shielded habitats on a sintered  lunar surface area. Each habitat module is connected to each other by an inflatable pressurized  walkway. 
Permanent outposts on the surfaces of the Moon and Mars  could be the first major steps towards the expansion of human civilization into the rest  of the solar system.  Unaided traction for human walking requires a gravity that is at least 10% of the gravity at the  Earth's surface. The Moon, Mars, Mercury, and the Jovian moon, Callisto, are all worlds that have surface gravities higher than 0.1 g. So these are extraterrestrial worlds  that will probably be accessible for continuous human occupation before the end of the century. However, whether such  low gravity environments would  have significant deleterious effects on  human health and reproduction is currently unknown. But long before the permanent settlement of extraterrestrial worlds,  human outpost on the Moon and Mars, could have beneficial scientific, commercial, and even strategic benefits for those nations and businesses that dare to venture there.

Planets and Moons within the solar system that are potentially suitable for human colonization:

Moon

surface area relative to the Earth: 7.4%     

surface gravity relative to the Earth: 0.17g 

diameter relative to the Earth: 27.3%


Mars

surface area relative to the Earth: 28.4%
   
surface gravity relative to the Earth: 0.38g 

diameter relative to the Earth: 53.1%


Mercury
 
surface area relative to the Earth:  14.7%
   
surface gravity relative to the Earth: 0.38g 

diameter relative to the Earth:  38.3%


Callisto 

surface area relative to the Earth:  14.3%
   
surface gravity relative to the Earth: 0.13g 

 diameter relative to the Earth:  37.8%

Note: Land area comprises 29% of the Earth's surface with 71% covered by water

Regolith shielded habitat designed for the Moon and Mars. Mobile water tanker provides water to the habitat for drinking, washing, growing food, and for the production of air.
Internal view of a regolith shielded habitat with regolith placed within the two meter cavity within the automatically deployed walls surrounding  the 8.4 meter in diameter pressurized habitat.

Permanent outpost on the surface of the Moon could immediately exploit lunar regolith to protect humans from significant exposure to harmful levels of radiation.  Just two meters of lunar regolith dumped within the walls of a lunar regolith habitat could reduce annual cosmic radiation exposure below the maximum legal limit for radiation workers on Earth (5 Rem per year)  during the solar minimum while also protecting astronauts from radiation exposure from major solar events. Protection from micrometeorites and extreme temperature fluctuations would be an added benefit of  insulating a lunar habitat with regolith.

A single lunar habitat derived from the technology used to make the light weight 8.4 meter in diameter hydrogen fuel tanks for the SLS could provide two levels of floor space  approximately 111 square meters in area. That would be more floor space than the average home in Germany, Japan, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Russia, and in the UK. The deployment of such  habitats for the private commercial community could also be used  as lunar hotels for space tourist or to house workers for private companies involved in the export of lunar water or regolith for government and private entities.

Creating solid pavement for the deployment of  habitats and other lunar outpost components upon dust free surfaces could be created by using mobile robots to pave and sinter lunar regolith.  This could eliminate tracking in deleterious lunar dust into pressurized habitats when astronauts are working in the paved  lunar outpost area. 

Mobile water tanker for storing and transporting water and a mobile water extracting  robot that uses microwaves to extract water from regolith from the shadowed areas of the lunar poles.
In the lunar polar regions, roving microwave water extraction robots could mine ice particles from the  permanently shadowed areas for the production of water. Water, of course, can be used for drinking, washing, food preparation, and for growing food. Water can also be electrolyzed for the production of oxygen for air and for the production of hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel needed to return to Earth.

Human biowaste could be converted into methanol through pyrolysis. Methanol and oxygen can be used with fuel cells to produce electricity for back up energy during periods of lunar darkness. The water produced from the combustion of methanol and oxygen can be recycled. The CO2 produced from the manufacture of methanol and from the combustion of methanol in fuel cells can be used to enhance the growth of indoor lunar crops. Small portable methanol fuel cells could also be used to provide power for pressure suits during lunar excursions.

Nitrogenous biowaste, such as urine, could be used as fertilizer for lunar crops.

However,  there is some  evidence that substantial quantities of carbon and nitrogenous material may also  be a significant component of the permanently shadowed areas at the lunar poles. Astronauts stationed at  lunar outpost at the lunar poles could used to explore and to quantify the amount of volatiles located within the shadowed regions.

Buried nuclear power plant on the lunar surface (Credit: NASA)
While solar panels attached to the habitats would provide the initial power for a lunar habitat, small nuclear reactors   buried beneath the lunar regolith only a few hundred meters away could provide substantial amounts of electricity for the lunar facility, 24 hours a day.

Outposts originally designed for the lunar surface could also be utilized  on the surfaces of Mars, Mercury, and Callisto and even on the meager surfaces of large asteroids and on the moons of Mars.
Three regolith shielded habitat modules on a sintered  Martian surface area. Each habitat module is  connected to each other by two inflatable pressurized  walkways.   


Permanent outpost on the Moon and Mars and on other worlds, would allow the continuous exploration of those surfaces by both humans and robots. Unmanned solar or nuclear powered rovers on the lunar surface, operated by humans on Earth, could visit and collect samples from  practically every area on the surface of the Moon. The collected rocks and soil could then be returned to the lunar outpost for immediate study or for eventual export back to Earth.

On Mars, both robotic rovers and hydrogen blimps could be utilized to continuously explore the Martian surface. Such robots could be operated in real time by the astronauts on the Martian surface or in orbit around Mars at a  space station.  Again, the collected samples by the remote controlled robots could be returned to the Martian outpost for immediate study or for eventual export back to Earth.

A permanent US government presences on the surface of the Moon and Mars will also enhance the ability of private American companies to protect their assets from potentially hostile foreign entities that will probably also be on these new worlds by mid century.

Marcel F. Williams

© New Papyrus


Links and References

 D. Bryant Cramer.  "Physiological Considerations of Artificial Gravity."  Applications of Tethers in Space, volume 1, pages 3·95-3·107.  Edited by Alfred C. Cron.  NASA Scientific and Technical Information Branch, 1985.  Conference Publication 2364: proceedings of a workshop held in Williamsburg, Virginia, June 15-17, 1983.

Lunar Station Protection: Lunar Regolith Shielding

Wet vs Dry Moon

Utilizing the SLS to Build a Cis-Lunar Highway

Cosmic Radiation and the New Frontier

NASA Steps Closer to Nuclear Power for Moon Base

How big is a house? Average house size by country
 
Mission and Implementation of an Affordable Lunar Return (Spudis & Lavoie) 

Using the resources of the Moon to create a permanent, cislunar space faring system (Spudis & Lavoie)



Monday, January 9, 2012

Harrison Schmitt Says its Time to Settle the Moon

America’s Deep Space Vision: Settlement of the Moon and Mars versus Asteroid Visits

by Harrison Schmitt

America’s eroding geopolitical stature, highlighted by the July 21, 2011, end to flights of the United States Space Shuttle, has reached crisis proportions. Obama Administration officials now spin the nebulous thought of Astronauts flying many months to an undetermined asteroid in 2025 as an actual “National Space Policy”. On the other hand, Republican candidates for President have not yet recognized the importance of international civil space competition in the federal government’s constitutional function to provide for the nation’s “common defence”. Candidates appear to be uninterested in having the United States lead deep space exploration, including the establishment of American settlements on the Moon; or may actually consider Obama’s unfocused proposals as being credible rather than realizing that those proposals would transfer geopolitical dominance to China and control of American space transport to Russia.

Although the Bush Administration and Congress did not follow through with adequate funding, at least the 2004 Vision for Space Exploration put forth by President Bush and approved by Congress was a legitimate formulation of a National Space Policy. It implicitly recognized that America’s best security interests would not be served by being dependent on Russia for access to space or by ceding to China both deep space exploration and access to space resources. Unfortunately, with the acquiescence of Congress in 2010, President Obama cancelled what had become known as NASA’s Constellation Program – a program designed to maintain and expand America’s hard-won position as the world’s leading space-faring nation. Meanwhile, China is building a major new deep space launch facility in Hainan and developing new rockets and spacecraft to take over the exploration of the Moon from the United States and the free world.

A properly funded Constellation Program, would have returned Americans and their partners to the Moon, begun creation of the infrastructure and operational capabilities to settle there and go to Mars and beyond, and provided a timely replacement for the aging Space Shuttle. Assuming that the Obama Administration actually requests authorization and budget authority to implement a human mission to a near-Earth asteroid (NEO), including the required heavy lift rockets, specialized spacecraft, operational infrastructure, and hiring authority, how would such a mission stack up relative to returning to the Moon?

Mars Mission Preparation

Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles & Operational Experience. Both repeated trips to the Moon and an occasional asteroid mission require an Apollo Saturn V-class, heavy lift rocket to escape the Earth’s gravity-well. Lunar exploration and an eventual commercially supported lunar settlement, however, would give a much greater, long-term return on investment of the same taxpayer dollars. Operational experience and multi-generational training gained at a Moon base or settlement is far more relevant to exploration and bases on the gravitationally similar Martian surface (3/8 gravity versus 1/6 gravity) than a mere “rendezvous and docking” with a near zero gravity asteroid.

Physiological Countermeasures. Understanding of the physiological countermeasures to space radiation exposure necessary for travel to Mars can be gained on the Moon sooner and at much lower risk with the added benefit of the future production of lunar water for radiation shielding. Of particular importance is determining whether the Moon’s one-sixth Earth’s gravity triggers physiological re-adaptation after astronauts experience the adverse effects of prolonged exposure to zero gravity during travel to Mars. This cannot be determined on a near zero-gravity asteroid. (The complexity and cost of physiological countermeasures on a Mars mission is critically dependent on knowing if this re-adaptation occurs in one-sixth gravity or not.)

Operational Approaches. Operational approaches for Mars landing and exploration, such as communications delays and lander concepts, can be evaluated and simulated realistically during lunar operations but not during an asteroid mission. Similarly, layered engineering defenses related to planetary biological protection and dust mitigation on Mars can be fully tested at a lunar base or settlement but not during a short visit to an asteroid. In addition, Mars atmospheric entry and descent vehicles and procedures can be tested in the low-density upper atmosphere of Earth more logically as an adjunct to a lunar exploration and settlement program than as part of a single purpose mission to an asteroid. Entry, descent and landing by large spacecraft through the thin but operationally significant Martian atmosphere are challenges for which there currently are no known engineering solutions.

Commercialization of He-3 and other Lunar Volatiles. Commercial access to the fusion energy resource of the Moon, Helium-3, also opens the potential of interplanetary fusion rockets that would allow continuous acceleration and deceleration between Earth and Mars, thus lowering travel risk to humans exploring deep space. Further, the Helium-3 production by-products of hydrogen, oxygen, and water can significantly lower the cost and risk of deep space travel and space station re-supply. A one-time visit to an asteroid provides no technically or commercially viable alternatives in this arena.

Reduction of Risk for Mars Missions. Programmatically, the transition from a lunar exploration and commercially supported settlement initiative to one focused on Mars landing and exploration would be more straightforward than a one-shot asteroid visit. Lunar exploration overall imposes much lower risk to explorers and mission success than a brief visit to an asteroid and is far more applicable to the reduction of the risks of Mars transit and exploration.

Science

Solar System History. Far more new science related to the early history of the Earth and other planets can be gained through renewed lunar exploration, sampling and analysis than similar activities related to an asteroid. Most asteroid science has been and can be gained from meteorites and multi-spectral imaging by the Hubble and future Webb telescopes. Robotic missions to asteroids, like the Dawn spacecraft now at Vesta, can answer most remaining questions about asteroids, particularly if sample returns are implemented in the future. Finally, the history and evolution of the Sun can be investigated extensively by studies of the long-term variations in solar wind composition and effects recorded in over-lapping layers in the lunar regolith (impact-generated rock debris). Such studies would not be productive on an accessible asteroid.

Astrophysical, Earth and Solar Observatories. A far-side lunar observatory shielded from both solar and terrestrial radio noise would be a boon to observational astronomy; however, no synoptic observational science of other parts of the universe, particularly in radio frequencies, can be conducted in a practical way from an asteroid. Also, a multi-spectral polar Earth observatory at a lunar pole, with simultaneous solar observation, would establish long-term, continuous, full sphere monitoring of weather and climate as well as providing a coherent means of synthesizing more detailed but much less synoptic data gathered from near-Earth satellites. Asteroids, of course, provide no such climate, weather and atmospheric physics-related opportunities.

Resources and Commercial Opportunities

Commercialization of He-3 and other Lunar Volatiles. Terrestrially valuable energy resources, that is, Helium-3 fusion fuel and solar energy, exist on the Moon a short distance from the Earth, but are not a practical option for shipment or transmission from an occasional passing asteroid. In this regard, much is known about the commercial parameters of potential lunar resources; however, little is known about the concentrations, physical and chemical form, or ease of access of potential resources on NEO asteroids. Also, gravity can assist in resource extraction and processing on the Moon but not on a near zero gravity NEO asteroid. Due to communication delays, possible resource mining and processing on an asteroid must be autonomous for relatively short intervals with only periodic human command input. This is unlike resource mining and processing on the Moon where it can be continuous either by human crews or by tele-robotic operation from Earth.

Economics of Lunar vs. Asteroidal Resources. Unlike the available analyses for the energy resources of the Moon, the required financial envelope for potential commercialization of asteroid resources is completely undefined with major questions as to technical practicality. Once Americans permanently established themselves on the Moon, available lunar resources include readily accessible and relatively low cost consumables necessary for operations in space, including water, hydrogen, oxygen, helium, carbon and nitrogen compounds, and food products. Various solid elements and oxides also could support manufacturing of products for use at a lunar settlement or elsewhere in space.

Tourism. Lunar tourism will eventually become a viable commercial opportunity once launch and support costs are compatible with the heavy lift launch costs required by commercial energy production (about $3000 per 220 pounds); whereas, asteroid tourism, as well as asteroid mining, will remain the stuff of science fiction for the foreseeable future.

Launch Opportunities and Mission Operations

Frequency of Access. For hypothetically possible missions to near-Earth asteroids (NEOs) that cross the orbit of the Earth, very few asteroid rendezvous opportunities exist over time versus essentially continuous opportunities for the Moon. Time for human asteroid exploration will be short because of increasing energy requirement to return as the asteroid moves away from Earth. On the other hand, stay-times on the Moon have no such constraint.

“Rendezvous and Docking” at an NEO. Because of the near zero gravity of an asteroid, an asteroid mission is a “rendezvous and docking” mission requiring very difficult operational procedures in order for astronauts to explore and sample the materials found there. Asteroids in orbit between Mars and Jupiter, such as Vesta currently being imaged by Dawn, require prohibitively long flight times for human visits until new, much more rapid propulsion technology exists.

Education

Stimulation of Learning and Ambition. An asteroid mission would provide flight opportunities to only a few astronauts and thus limit the interest of children and young people in preparing for careers related to space and technology. In contrast, an indefinite commitment to lunar exploration and commercially supported settlement offers a permanent set of career opportunities as a stimulus to STEM education and economic innovation throughout the country. Importantly, the Moon is a destination children and young people can see with their own eyes in the nighttime sky. That sight would become even more inspiring with the knowledge that men, women and families are living and working on the Moon as those youngsters look up to the sky…and to their futures… while other children look up to see Earth.

Leadership and National Security

Lunar exploration and settlement as a precursor to missions to Mars and beyond would be far more productive and practical than a onetime mission to an asteroid. A return to the Moon also constitutes much less risky national policy in the still risky business of deep space exploration.

All public indications are that our Cold War II adversary, China, includes space in its vision of geopolitical dominance as well as in its plans for technological, educational and energy resource advancement. China’s announced long-term space policy is focused on the Moon. The United States stands as the only viable bulwark of freedom on the planet. If the Federal Government ignores this challenge, as well as the commercial energy resources of the Moon and its role as an essential steppingstone to Mars, its constitutional duty to provide for the security of America will be fatally compromised. An asteroid mission constitutes an unacceptable diversion in our broader responsibility to future generations.

Originally posted at:

http://americasuncommonsense.com/blog/2012/01/

http://blog.heartland.org/2012/01/americas-deep-space-vision-settlement-of-the-moon-and-mars-versus-asteroid-visits/

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Conquering Cis-Lunar Space with Shuttle and ULA Derived Technologies

by Marcel F. Williams
Congress has now made it clear that they want the immediate development of a heavy lift vehicle and a crew exploratory vehicle capable of beyond LEO missions and as a back up transport to the ISS. They have also made it clear that they want NASA to utilize technologies derived from both the Space Shuttle and Ares I/V programs since billions of tax payer money has already been invested in these technologies.

Some, however, have argued that utilizing a heavy lift vehicle as a crew transport to LEO violates the philosophy of improving safety by not combining crew transport with cargo transport. This was part of the driving philosophy of former NASA director, Griffin, when he decided to advocate the development of the Ares I as an ultra-safe crew transport vehicle and the Ares V as a mega-heavy lift cargo vehicle.

Recently, NASA has been promoting a philosophy of developing new transport systems that can be utilized not only by NASA but also potentially by the military space program and by private commercial space programs. The advantage of such a philosophy is that increased demand for common transport systems or components could reduce cost for everyone that utilizes such vehicles or components.

The deployment of space depots has been argued as another means for reducing the cost of space travel beyond LEO. And the development of reusable space craft that utilize in situ resources on the Moon or the asteroids has also been proposed as a way to reduce the cost of space travel.

But is there a way that NASA could cheaply incorporate all of these ideas? I believe the answer is yes!

The first step is to develop a simple shuttle derived core vehicle similar to that proposed by Boeing. The Boeing shuttle derived core vehicle could be utilized to transport humans into orbit without using solid rocket boosters (SRBs). But with SRBs, the Boeing core vehicle could be used as a heavy lift vehicle.

Boeing, however, advocates using four of the cheaper RS-68B engines for their crew launch vehicle concept while using the more fuel efficient RS-25E (disposable SSME) for the heavy lift vehicle. Man-rating the RS-68 rocket engines will probably increase the cost of these engines while making the RS-25 expendable will probably reduce their cost. Using the same engines in both the crew launch and the heavy lift vehicle will increase demand, further reducing production cost. So I advocate using the RS-25E in both the crew launch vehicle and the heavy lift vehicle.

Boeing also proposed using a stretched hypergolic fueled SM (Service Module), requiring an extra 8 to 9 metric tons of fuel in order for the crew launch vehicle to transport a 20 metric ton capsule and crew to LEO. The United Launch Alliance (ULA), however, has proposed using an ACES 41 as a LOX/LH2 fueled Service Module. Utilizing an ACES 41 SM with a shuttle derived crew launch booster which I'll call the SD-CV (shuttle derived core vehicle) could potentially lift more than 30 metric tons to LEO. Since the ULA plans to use the ACES 41 as a common upper stage for both the Atlas and the Delta IV, the high production demand for the ACES 41 by NASA and the ULA should help to reduce cost for the ACES 41.


SD-CV (Shuttle Derived Core Vehicle) and ULA's ACES 41 (credit ULA) concept used as a Service Module for an Orion capsule.

Boeing's heavy lift vehicle concept with an EDS could lift up to 120 metric tons to LEO while the crew vehicle could lift more than 30 metric tons to LEO (150 metric tons in combination). That's enough capacity to launch nearly 60 metric tons of payload to trans lunar injection or to the Earth-Lunar L1 Lagrange point.


The SD-HLV with an Altair lunar landing vehicle and the SD-CV with a Command Module (CM) and an ACES 41 Service Module (SM).

An SD-CV crew vehicle with the ability to launch over 30 metric tons into orbit would also give it approximately the same capabilities as the current space shuttle with the exception of not being able to return large payloads back to Earth. But the SD-CV should be substantially cheaper to operate than the shuttle since it does not require SRBs. The SD-CV could also be one of the safest manned launch vehicles ever developed since it would only have two stages, with each stage having multiple engines capable of supplementing a failed engine in both stages. Being hydrogen fueled would also make it potentially the greenest manned space vehicle ever developed. While a manned launched SD-HLV would still be safer than a space shuttle launch, the SD-CV should be equally as safe as a man rated Atlas V-401 and a substantially safer vehicle than an SD-HLV, Delta IV heavy, or a Falcon 9 (the two stage Falcon 9 only has one engine for the upper stage so a single engine failure in the upper stage would terminate the mission).

Any space capsule chosen by NASA for the Orion CEV (Crew Exploratory Vehicle) should be able to be used by NASA and private industry on top of an ACES 41 which could be used by an Atlas V or a Delta IV heavy. Again, the higher the demand for a particular crew capsule, the lower the capsule's production cost will be.

An SD-HLV lunar mission would launch an Altair into Earth orbit for a rendezvous with a CM-SM-ACES 41, or it could use the Altair to transport unmanned payloads (lunar base modules, vehicles, oxygen factories, etc.) weighing more than 10 metric tons to the lunar surface.

Because of its large payload capacity, some might question the private commercial viability of the SD-CV as a crew launcher against much smaller potentially manned rated launch vehicles like the Atlas 5 and the Falcon 9. However, if a payload carrier is placed between the command module and the service module, the shuttle derived crew carrier could also transport and additional 20 metric tons of cargo to LEO. While the space shuttle is banned from carrying commercial loads into orbit, a private commercial company would have no such restrictions!

SD-CV could be launched into to orbit for a rendezvous with the Altair for a lunar mission or it could be used to transports crew and cargo to the ISS or to private commercial space stations.

There are two principal options for the EDS (Earth Departure Stage) for the unmanned heavy lift vehicle: one that uses a single JX-2 engine and one that uses multiple RL 10 engines. Since the ACES 41 in this concept and the Altair lunar lander would also use RL-10 engines, using RL-10s in the EDS, Service Module, and Altair lunar lander would obviously increase the demand for the RL-10 which should reduce the production cost for the engine.


After the Orion-CM-SM-ACES 41 docks with the Altair and EDS (Earth Departure Stage), the EDS provides most of the delta-v for transferring the Altair and the Orion to the L1 Lagrange point.

The SM-ACES 41 provides the rest of the delta-v requirements for reaching L1 in addition to the delta-v for returning passengers to Earth. Limiting the Orion CM-SM-ACES 41 to L1 would substantially reduce the delta-v requirements for a lunar mission.


The single stage Altar vehicle would transport up to three metric tonnes of payload (crew transport module, cargo, and crew) from L1 to the lunar surface and back to L1. L1 departure for the Altair vehicle enhances the ability of the lunar lander to conveniently land at practically any point on the lunar surface.

The Altair lunar landing vehicle was originally proposed to have a LOX/LH2 descent stage and a hypergolic fueled ascent stage. However, there is no reason why a lunar landing vehicle can't be a single stage vehicle by simply using the descent stage to land and lift a small crew module weighing about 3 metric tons with four passengers and payload. This would mean that NASA would only have to develop one lunar vehicle instead of two, substantially reducing development cost. Plus the Altair descent stage would use an RL-10 engine which would further reduce the cost of the RL-10 engine used by both NASA and the ULA.


A single stage Altair vehicle with a crew transport module would be much cheaper to develop than the two stage Altair concept that uses both a LOX/LH2 descent stage and a hypergolic fueled ascent stage. For long term missions to a lunar base facility, a simple light weight aluminum sun shade could be used to cover and shield the vehicle from direct sunlight on the lunar surface in order to reduce hydrogen and oxygen fuel boil-off.

Any Moon base program that involves the production of oxygen and even hydrogen from lunar resources would have a dramatic effect on reducing the cost of space travel within cis-lunar space. Without the need for a vehicle to carry oxygen and hydrogen fuel to the lunar surface for its eventual return to orbit, manned missions to a lunar base could carry several metric tons of additional cargo plus additional passengers to the lunar surface instead of just a few hundred kilograms with crew as currently envisioned by the Constellation program. Lunar oxygen and hydrogen could also allow an Altair to be used as a reusable manned vehicle operating from the lunar surface to lunar orbit or from the lunar surface to L1.


A reusable single stage Altair crew transport vehicle could be fueled with oxygen and hydrogen from an L1 space depot for transporting passenger to the Moon and with in situ oxygen and hydrogen from the lunar surface for returning passengers to L1 requiring a much smaller vehicle that simply uses shorter cryogenic 0xygen and hydrogen fuel tanks.

A stretched Altair vehicle, using longer hydrogen and oxygen fuel tanks, combined with an ACES 41 tanker could be used to supply an L1 depot with oxygen and hydrogen produced on the lunar surface. Such a tanker could also be used to supply lunar bases not located near the poles with hydrogen.

So some day a paying tourist or a lunar lotto winner aboard a Falcon 9, Atlas V, Delta IV heavy, or a SD-CV could simply fly into orbit and dock with another ACES 41 (originally fueled with lunar oxygen and hydrogen at an L1 space depot) to travel to L1. At the Lagrange point, passengers would dock with an L1 fueled reusable Altair vehicle which would transport them to the Moon where they could perhaps stay at an appropriately mass shielded a Bigelow lunar hotel. The same lunar vehicle could be refueled with lunar oxygen and hydrogen for the tourist's return to L1 where they would dock with a CM-SM-ACES 41 equipped with an aerobreaking hypercone that would take them back to Earth orbit. There they would dock with a space capsule or Dreamchaser space plane that would finally return them to the Earth. That might be a very interesting vacation perhaps 15 or 20 years from now!

References and Links

1. Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems (Boeing Phantom Works)

2. Ambitious Ares Test Flight Proposed for HLV Demonstration

3. NASA Heavy Lift and Propulsion Trade Study

4. Completed SD HLV assessment highlights low-cost post-shuttle solution

5. ULA: Upper Stage Evolution

6. A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture

7. National Launch System

8. DIRECT

9. Boeing's New HLV Concept could be the DC-3 of Manned Rocket Boosters

10. No time for NASA complacency on crew safety

11. All of a Sudden, Everyone Wants to Be a Rocket Scientist

12. PWR Offers Shuttle Engine Alternative

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Colonizing the Moon


by Marcel F. Williams

The primary focus of NASA's-- manned space program-- should be the pioneering and colonization of the rest of the solar system. That means building the space transportation and habitat infrastructure that can get humans into space and settled into the rest of the solar system. That would also mean minimizing the use of terrestrial resources while maximizing the use of extraterrestrial resources in order for humans to survive in the New Frontier. But any significant deviation of our manned space program away from the primary goal of-- human colonization-- would be a waste of tax payer dollars, IMO. And it seems obvious that the first logical step in that pioneering and colonization effort should be our closest neighbor in space-- the Moon.

But we've been to the Moon already. So why return?

Sure 12 Americans briefly visited the lunar surface back in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17) but we never tried to live there or live off the land! And that's a big difference.

NASA needs to focus on sending lunar habitat modules to the lunar surface in order to build a permanent and continuously growing manned facility. Such a facility would have immediate scientific, commercial, and strategic benefits:

1. We'll finally discover if the Moon's 1/6 hypogravity environment is deleterious to human health over several months or even several years as is the case of the microgravity environment aboard a space station. If it does turn out the the Moon's low gravity is harmful to humans over the long run, we'll also be able to determine if exercise, wearing weighted back packs, and, or, supplying temporary artificial gravity via a small rotating centrifuges can mitigate or eliminate these deleterious effects. On the other hand, if the lunar hypogravity environment turns out not to be harmful to health and reproduction in humans and other animals then colonizing the heavier hypogravity environment of Mars should be a cinch.

2. We'll finally be able to see if we can economically extract oxygen for air, water manufacturing (with imported hydrogen), and rocket fuel from lunar rocks and dirt.

3. We'll finally be able to accurately determine how much lunar regolith is required appropriately protect humans from galactic and solar radiation.

4. We can finally build and test the first electric powered mass drivers on the lunar surface to see if we can export lunar material economically into lunar orbit or to L1, L2, L4, or L5. Lunar material cheaply transported into orbit could provide us with a cheap source of oxygen and radiation shielding for orbit space stations and interplanetary vehicles. Lunar manufactured aluminum transported into orbit by lunar mass drivers could also be used for rocket fuel and solar sail manufacturing.

5. We'll finally be able to see how well we can grow crops and raise animals on the Moon for food.

6. Telescopes placed on the lunar surface could revolutionize astronomy taking full advantage of the natural vacuum and the 14 days of lunar night while being able to be easily maintained by humans already living on the lunar surface.



Colonization, of course, does not preclude the exploration, commercialization, or industrialization of other worlds. In fact, it greatly enhances it!

Robots capable of traveling up to 10 kilometers per hour could be sent out to explore the Moon from the lunar base. If they averaged 5 kilometers per hour, they could travel 120 kilometers per day, 1200 kilometers in 10 days, more than half the circumference of the Moon in less than 50 days. They could explore regions, collect rocks and dirt, and then return the samples back to the base. Unmanned robotic sorties could land inside deep craters, collect rocks and soil, and then take off into L1 where an Orion could pick them up during a manned mission to the Moon to return the samples back to Earth. So a single lunar base doesn't preclude lunar exploration. Eventually, a lunar regolith shielded (via lunar mass drivers) L1 station could utilize reusable manned lunar landers that could explore various regions of the Moon while also transporting humans to lunar bases of Americans and other countries.

In the long run, lunar colonist might live under more spacious Earth-like environments under huge pressurized plastic domes, perhaps a few hundred meters in diameter, appropriately protected from radiation from an insulating layer of water and from micrometeorites by an outer of lunar regolith. Eventually, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, chlorine and other useful agricultural and industrial chemicals could be imported far more cheaply from the asteroids or from the moons of Mars than from the Earth's surface. A large lunar population, mostly independent of terrestrial resources, might eventually generate revenue from wealthy tourist traveling to the Moon from the Earth, the burial of light weight and compact cremated human remains transported from Earth, the round trip of cremated remains returning to Earth sprinkled with Moon dust within a lunar urn manufactured from lunar materials, and perhaps the export of lunar uranium to Earth for the nuclear energy industry (I'll believe in lunar helium-3 mining when I see the first commercial fusion reactor on Earth).

However, satellite manufacturing and launching, might be the Lunarian's largest industry since it requires at least 20 times less energy to launch a satellite into Earth orbit from the Moon than from the Earth's surface. Additionally, fewer satellites may have to be launched from the Moon than from the Earth since they could be cheaply launched into high Earth orbits where only three networking satellites would be required rather than dozens of low Earth orbiting networking satellites. The Lunarians could therefore someday be at the core of the 100 billion dollar a year satellite telecommunications industry which could grow into a multi-trillion dollar a year industry within the next 20 or 30 years. Future historians may well ask why humans didn't reap the economic benefits of lunar industrialization by colonizing the Moon back in the 1970s or 1980s instead of waiting until the early 21st century.

© Marcel F. Williams
New Papyrus

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Obama's NASA Decision


by Marcel F. Williams

The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee (the Augustine Commission) recently concluded that NASA's Constellation return to the Moon program is running $50 billion over the current budget through the year 2020. They also concluded that cheaper alternatives such as the NASA's Side-mount shuttle and the DIRECT concept would also exceed NASA's budget by at least $20 billion to $30 billion.

So it appears that the Augustine commission will recommend a $3 billion dollar increase to NASA's annual budget if the US is to return to the Moon or a termination of the Moon program in order to stay within NASA's current $17 billion dollar a year budget.

So what should President Obama do?

At the height of the Apollo program, the NASA budget reached $33 billion a year in today's dollars, nearly twice as large as NASA current budget. NASA's $17 billion annual budget represents less 0.6% of the total Federal budget while the US Federal government is spending nearly a trillion dollars annually on defense related purposes. So a $3 billion annual increase to the NASA budget would be extremely tiny relative to the overall Federal budget.

I believe that President Obama needs to raise the NASA budget while also choosing the fastest and the cheapest return to the Moon architecture. That's why President Obama needs to raise the annual NASA budget by at least $3 billion while choosing NASA's SD-HLV (Side-mount shuttle) concept in order to return to the Moon to set up a permanently manned lunar facility.

Terminating funding for the Ares 1 combined with a $3 billion annual increase should give NASA an extra $4 billion dollars a year to work with without immediately terminating the current Space Shuttle program or the ISS.

At least $700 million of that should go to finance the development the Orion (CEV) over the next 5 years which is currently being funded at nearly $1.4 billion a year. That would raise Orion funding to $2.1 billion a year over the next 5 years.

NASA has preliminarily estimated that the cost of developing the SD-HLV vehicles should cost $6.6 billion and could be ready for full testing in 4 and a half years. So 1.5 billion a year over the next 5 years should be more than enough to develop the SD-HLV vehicles.

That leaves another 1.8 billion a year to immediately start funding the development of the Altair lunar landing vehicle over the next 5 or 6 years so that America could be ready to return to the Moon by 2016. Why wait until 2020 to return to the Moon when the shuttle derived heavy lift vehicles could be ready by 2015 or 2016?

Additional funds for the development of the Moon program could be garnered by terminating the Space Shuttle program and US ISS involvement a year or more before the Orion-HLV and Altair-HLV space craft are ready. That would be $5 billion in additional funds if both the Shuttle and the ISS were terminated a year early and $10 billion if they were terminated two years early.

2016 should also be a time when NASA should have plenty of extra funds from both the termination of the Space Shuttle and ISS programs and from the completion of the Orion, Altair, and SD-HLV development programs: plenty of money for a continuously growing lunar base program and beyond.

The US space program has always been the ultimate symbol of America's scientific and technological achievement. And NASA has contributed far more to the economic wealth of the US than it has consumed. The expansion of humans into the rest of the solar system is essential to the long term survival our species and towards the continued economic growth of human civilization. That's why President Barack Obama needs to strongly commit the US towards leading that expansion of humanity into the New Frontier.

1. Augustine Commission
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2009/08/augustine-commission-recommends-that.html

2. NASAs-Ares-Alternative:-The-Side-mount-Shuttle

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/16/753191/-NASAs-Ares-Alternative:-The-Side-mount-Shuttle

3. Robots could build a base on the Moon

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/19/733423/-Robots-Could-Build-a-Base-on-the-Moon

© Marcel F. Williams
New Papyrus

Friday, May 29, 2009

The Ares V - Super Rocket

In my opinion, the development of the Ares V is NASA's most important project. The worse mistake the US ever made was decommissioning our only heavy lift vehicle (the Saturn V) back in the early 1970's. The Saturn V not only put men on the Moon but placed America's first space station (Skylab) into orbit. During the gap between the Apollo moon program and the Space shuttle program, we could have used the Saturn V to launch more Skylabs and the first large rotational simulated gravity space stations.




By the time the Space Shuttle program had begun, it would have already had a space station or stations to visit. Then we could have used the Saturn V in combination with the Space Shuttle to set up a permanent base on the Moon during the 1980s using reusable OTVs (orbital transfer vehicles) and reusable lunar landers. The 1980's could have been the greatest space era in American and world history.

With the development of the Ares V, America will once again have heavy lift capability again. The Ares V will enable us to launch over 180 tonnes into low earth orbit (Skylab only weighed 77 tonnes); 70 tonnes into lunar orbit; and between 15 to 20 tonnes on the lunar surface. The Ares V will give America the ability to begin the human colonization of the Moon and the ability to exploit the natural resources of the moons of Mars in order to make a lunar colony independent of the Earth's resources.



Unfortunately, we might not see the Ares V in operation until after the year 2020-- if ever-- thanks to the lack of proper funding for the project. Former NASA administrator Mike Griffin blamed the Bush administration for the lack of adequate funding for the Ares V program.

NASA's $19 billion a year budget (less than two months in Iraq) may not have enough money in it for the Ares V. The replacement for the Space Shuttle, the Ares 1, may cost over $40 billion dollars over the next 6 years. Our commitment to the International Space Station (the mission to nowhere) is going to cost over $2 billion a year.


If I were Charles Bolden, Obama's new NASA administrator, I would:

1. Prioritize funding for the Ares V in order to accelerate the its development.

2. I would change the Constellation lunar sortie program to a lunar base program with a prefabricated lunar facility already built and properly shielded by robots sent by the Ares V before the first astronauts arrived on the lunar surface.

3. I would ask Obama to add an extra $4 billion a year specifically to fund the Ares V and the lunar base program. And if he said that he couldn't raise the NASA budget then I'd recommend that the money come from reducing our commitment to the ISS and ending the development of the Ares 1 and replace it with the much cheaper man rating of one of the Delta Heavy vehicles.



It would be nice to have humans return to the Moon and to a permanent facility during the last year of the Obama administration in 2016. But I guess I'd be satisfied if America had a moon base at least before the year 2020. John Kennedy got us to the Moon in 8 years using primitive 1960's technology. So I would be extremely disappointed if it took America more than a decade to establish a permanent human presence on the Moon-- our closest celestial neighbor and the gateway to the solar system.


Links and References

1. Ares V (Wikipedia)
2. Constellation (Wikipedia)
3. Constellation (NASA)
4. Ares V (NASA)

Blog Archive

CINEMA FANTASTIC

Popular Posts